From a moral point of view, Li has constituted a crime. What responsibility should the law give him?

Supreme Law: Drunk driving should not be convicted.

Courts at all levels should correctly grasp the constitutive conditions of the crime of dangerous driving. After 20 11May1,local public security organs have successively seized a number of drunk driving suspects and will soon file a lawsuit with the people's court. However, local courts should be cautious when investigating criminal responsibility, and should not just understand the provisions of the Eighth Amendment of the Criminal Law literally. They think that driving a motor vehicle constitutes a criminal offence as long as it meets the drunk standard, and it should be linked with the revised Road Traffic Safety Law.

That is to say, although the eighth amendment to the Criminal Law stipulates that drunk driving a motor vehicle should be investigated for criminal responsibility, it does not clearly stipulate the preconditions for serious or bad circumstances. However, according to the principle stipulated in Article 13 of the General Principles of Criminal Law, if the circumstances endangering social behavior are obviously minor and the harm is not great, it is not considered a crime. If drunk driving a motor vehicle on the road needs to be investigated for criminal responsibility, attention should be paid to the connection with administrative punishment to prevent acts that could have been punished according to the Road Traffic Safety Law from being directly prosecuted to the court for criminal responsibility.

201010/at about 22: 30 on October 20th, the defendant Yao Jiaxin drove the red Chevrolet car Shaanxi A4 19N0 from the Chang 'an campus of International Studies University and ran down the victim Zhang Miao who was riding an electric car in the same direction in the non-motorized lane. Yao Jiaxin was afraid that Zhang Miao would make trouble by remembering the license plate number, so he stabbed Zhang Miao in the chest, abdomen and back with a sharp knife and killed Zhang Miao. On the way to escape, two people were injured. On the 22nd of the same month, the public security organ asked him whether the victim Zhang Miao was responsible for the murder, but Yao Jiaxin denied it. On the 23rd of the same month, accompanied by his parents, Yao Jiaxin surrendered himself to the public security organs.

Why did Yao Jiaxin execute the death penalty and Li was sentenced to six years in prison? Just because Yao Jiaxin's father is not Li Gang? I hope Yao Jiaxin knows something underground. Don't complain that his father is not Li Gang!

On the morning of April 22nd, 2065438+0/KLOC-0, Yao Jiaxin, a junior at Xi 'an Conservatory of Music, was sentenced in the first instance of Xi 'an Intermediate People's Court. Defendant Yao Jiaxin was convicted of intentional homicide, sentenced to death, deprived of political rights for life, and compensated the victim's family for economic losses of 45,498.5 yuan.

The case of Yao Jiaxin's execution of death penalty (2011), which attracted much attention from the society, reached a final conclusion on June 7th: Yao Jiaxin was executed after being approved by the Supreme People's Court according to law. This result reflects the justice of the judiciary and the fairness and justice of the society. If it is fair, the same car accident is more domineering and inhuman than Yao Jiaxin. Why was the real second-generation official Li sentenced to six years in prison?

Yao Jiaxin is on the road, and the social soil that creates hatred still exists. The social hierarchy forged by power and wealth has penetrated into the bone marrow of many people. People consciously stand in line, admire those who are higher than themselves and despise those who are lower than themselves. We long for equality and respect, but we have been living in discrimination and contempt.

He will not respect a life, because lower than himself, that person is just an object that can be disposed of at will. He has no guilt, only a trace of fear and panic after killing.

The campus road that allows social vehicles to pass in Li's traffic accident case belongs to the "road" stipulated in the Road Traffic Law.

I. Basic information

Defendant Li, formerly known as male, was born in February of19881988/and was unemployed. 20 10 10 was arrested on124 on suspicion of traffic accident.

The defendant Li committed the crime of traffic accident, and the People's Procuratorate of Wangdu County, Hebei Province filed a public prosecution with the People's Court of Wangdu County.

Defendant Li confessed to the criminal facts accused by the public prosecution agency. His defender suggested that Li had a good attitude of pleading guilty, and his relatives actively compensated the injured party for economic losses and obtained the understanding of the injured party. Moreover, he has always performed well and has no criminal record. He asked the court to give him a lighter punishment and apply a suspended sentence.

The Wangdu County People's Court found through public trial that the defendant Li had drunk too much on the evenings of 20 10, 16, when entertaining Meng Lingchao and Gai Yulong at Fuhai Hotel in Baoding City, Hebei Province. Later, Li drove a black Volkswagen Magotan with license plate number Ji FWE420 to meet people in the new campus of Hebei University, and sent Gai Yulong and others back to school by the way. Li drove into the south gate of the school living area and stopped to let Gai Yulong and others get off. Because Li was drunk, Meng Lingchao, who arrived by bus later, reminded him to drive slowly. After getting off the bus, Gai Yulong sat back in the co-pilot position and reminded him to drive slowly. Without saying anything, Li continued speeding (the speed limit in the school living area was 5km/h). At about 2 1 30 on the same day, when Li drove to the front of the supermarket in the school living area, he knocked down the person who was practicing roller skating ahead to the front of the car and landed, and also knocked down Zhang Jingjing who helped practice roller skating. After the accident, Li continued to drive to the dormitory of Xinqinglou, picked up his friend Du Xinyu, and urged Gai Yulong to get off. Li drove back without stopping at the incident site, but was stopped by school security personnel when he arrived at the south gate of the living area and taken to the public security organ. Chen Xiaofeng died of craniocerebral injury after being rescued: Zhang Jingjing was slightly injured. It was identified that the car driven by Li was driving at a speed of 45 before the collision.

0 ~59 km/h, Li's blood alcohol content is151mg/100 ml, which belongs to drunk speeding. Confirmed by the traffic management department, Li took full responsibility for the accident.

The Wangdu County People's Court held that the defendant Li violated the traffic management regulations, drunk driving and speeding on campus, causing a major traffic accident, resulting in one death and one minor injury, taking full responsibility for the accident and escaping after the traffic accident. His behavior has constituted the crime of causing traffic accidents, and the circumstances of the crime are bad and the consequences are serious, so he should be punished according to law. After the incident, Li's close relatives actively compensated the economic losses of the injured party and obtained the understanding of the injured party. Moreover, Li pleaded guilty voluntarily in court, and his attitude of repentance was good, so he could be given a lighter punishment as appropriate. Defenders' defense opinions on Li's lighter punishment should be adopted. The Wangdu County People's Court sentenced the defendant Li to six years' imprisonment for committing traffic accidents in accordance with Article 133 of the Criminal Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) and Article 2, paragraph 1 and Article 3 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in the Trial of Criminal Cases of Traffic Accidents.

After the verdict was pronounced in the first instance, the defendant Li did not appeal within the statutory time limit, and the procuratorate did not lodge a protest. The judgment has taken legal effect.

Second, the main problems

1. Does the campus road belong to the "road" stipulated in the Road Traffic Safety Law?

2. How to seek the best trial effect between public opinion pressure and rational punishment?

Third, the referee's reasons

(1) The campus road where social vehicles are allowed to pass is the "road" stipulated in the Road Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Road Traffic Law).

During the trial of this case, there were different opinions on whether the road of the defendant Li in the traffic accident section of the living area of the new campus of Hebei University belongs to the "road" stipulated in the Road Traffic Law, so the following two opinions were formed on Li's drunken driving behavior:

One view is that the location of the case does not belong to the "road" stipulated in the Road Traffic Law, and the defendant Li's behavior constitutes a crime of negligent death. The reason is that the first paragraph of Article 119 of the Road Traffic Law stipulates: "'Road' refers to highways, urban roads and places where social motor vehicles are allowed to pass, including squares, public parking lots and other places for the public to pass. . The living area of the new campus of Hebei University is a closed place with walls and gates. At ordinary times, vehicles from other units can enter and exit from the south gate of the living area, but generally the vehicle number must be registered, and vehicles are prohibited from entering and leaving from the north gate. If the place where social motor vehicles can enter after registration is understood as the public transportation management scope of "allowing social motor vehicles to pass", then the definition of "road" in the Road Traffic Law will lose its practical significance. Therefore, strictly speaking, the location of this case does not have the characteristics of "road" as stipulated in the Road Traffic Law, and it does not belong to the category of public traffic management.

According to the second paragraph of Article 8 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in the Trial of Criminal Cases of Traffic Accidents (hereinafter referred to as the Interpretation), "driving a motor vehicle or using other means of transportation outside the scope of public transportation management causes casualties or causes heavy losses to public property or other people's property, which constitutes a crime", it is respectively recognized as the crime of major liability accident, the crime of major labor safety accident or the crime of negligent death. This case belongs to the situation that driving a motor vehicle outside the scope of public transportation management causes casualties, and should be convicted and punished for the crime of negligent death.

Another view is that the location of the case belongs to the road stipulated in the Road Traffic Law, and the defendant Li's behavior constitutes a traffic accident crime. The reason is that Li's accident happened in the living area of the new campus of Hebei University, and the security department of the management committee of Hebei University issued a certificate saying that public vehicles were allowed to pass in the living area of the new campus of the school. This certificate can represent the opinions of the accident site management unit and has legal effect. It shows that the road in the living area of the new campus of Hebei University belongs to the "place where social motor vehicles are allowed to pass, although it is within the jurisdiction of the unit" stipulated in the Road Traffic Law: Li was drunk and trusted his driving ability too much, speeding on the campus road, causing one death and one minor injury in a traffic accident, taking full responsibility for the accident, and his behavior has constituted a traffic accident crime.

We agree with the latter view that the scene of the defendant Li's driving accident in the living area of the new campus of Hebei University belongs to the "road" stipulated in the Road Traffic Law, and Li's drunken driving accident constitutes a traffic accident crime. The specific analysis is as follows:

1. From the analysis of the contents of "Road" in relevant legal documents, the scope of "Road" is constantly expanding. 1988 promulgated and implemented the "Regulations of the People's Republic of China on Road Traffic Management" (hereinafter referred to as the "Regulations"), Article 2 stipulates: "The roads mentioned in this Regulation refer to expressways, urban streets and hutongs, public squares, public parking lots and other places where vehicles and pedestrians can pass." Accordingly, the interpretation formulated by the Supreme People's Court in 2000 clearly regards "road" as the scope of public transportation management, and excludes the sections under the internal jurisdiction of government agencies, enterprises and institutions, campuses, factories and mines from the scope of "road". However, in practice, many enterprises and institutions, campuses, factories and mines have been expanding factories and parks, and they are open management. Social vehicles and pedestrians often pass through this section, and there are more and more accidents of collision between people and vehicles. The parties often call the police and ask the traffic management department to call the police to identify the responsibility of the accident and facilitate the subsequent handling of the accident. However, due to the restrictions of the Regulations, accidents of driving vehicles in these sections cannot be regarded as traffic accidents, and the relevant insurance companies are unwilling to bear the liability for compensation, so it is difficult to effectively protect the rights and interests of the perpetrators and victims. Therefore, the "regulations" on "roads" are increasingly inconsistent with the new situations that constantly appear in practice. In view of this, the Road Traffic Law promulgated and implemented in 2004 revised the meaning of "road", expanded the scope of public traffic management, and defined the scope of "road" as "highways, urban roads and places where social vehicles are allowed to pass, including squares, public parking lots and other places for the public to pass". In this way, the road sections that allow social vehicles to pass within the jurisdiction of the unit are included in the scope of "roads", so as to better maintain the traffic order of these road sections and protect the legitimate rights and interests of the perpetrators and victims.

2. The accident in this case is located in the living area of the new campus of Hebei University, which belongs to the jurisdiction of a typical unit. Although the living area is relatively closed, with walls and gates, it is an open park with relatively perfect social service functions. Social vehicles can enter and exit the south gate of the living area only by registering their car numbers, and there is a traffic sign with a speed limit of 5 kilometers at the gate. It can be seen that Hebei University manages the living area sections in its new campus according to the "road". Evidence collected by public security organs, such as vehicle surveillance videos and doorman's testimony, shows that social vehicles can actually pass without registration. Therefore, the roads in this residential area belong to the "place where social motor vehicles are allowed to pass" as stipulated in the Road Traffic Law. Defendant Li violated traffic regulations, drunk driving on the campus road, causing a major traffic accident, resulting in one death and one minor injury, taking full responsibility for the accident, and his behavior has constituted a traffic accident crime.

(2) For cases of high social concern, we should seek the best trial effect between the pressure of public opinion and rational punishment.

With the rapid development of network technology, today's society has entered the era of "self-media". Weibo, WeChat, blogs and forums have all become platforms for information dissemination, and the dissemination speed has also increased at a geometric speed. Compared with traditional media, online media spreads faster and wider, but the authenticity of information is more uncertain. Unreal and incomplete information can be seen everywhere on the Internet. Criminal crime is a concentrated reflection and extreme expression of social contradictions, which easily touches public sentiment and triggers social sentiment. Some people maliciously exaggerate the facts and fabricate false information to attract public attention, incite dissatisfaction, or interfere with the trial results, and spread and spread on the Internet. This so-called "public opinion" is usually an illusion of public opinion, does not represent the real public opinion, and cannot stand the test of law, facts and time. In this case, the people's court must maintain judicial rationality, treat public opinion cautiously, especially keep a clear understanding of online public opinion, understand the improper influence and misleading of false information on public opinion, and prevent it from being influenced by public opinion.

After this case happened, related cases quickly spread on the Internet, causing widespread concern in the society, and became a hot and sensitive case in that year. Public opinion was "one-sided" and demanded severe punishment. Under this pressure, it is suggested that the defendant Li be sentenced to death for endangering public safety in a dangerous way.

We believe that in the face of this public opinion, the people's court should remain rational, fully consider the seriousness of the social impact caused by the case, and make a judgment cautiously and steadily within the scope of statutory punishment. According to the testimony of relevant witnesses and Li's confession, Li trusted his driving skills too much when others kindly reminded him to drive slowly, and credulity could avoid the occurrence of harmful consequences; After he knocked down the victim, he did not stop to continue driving, nor did he commit other acts endangering public safety. Therefore, it should be considered that his subjective mentality belongs to the fault of overconfidence and does not constitute the crime of endangering public safety in a dangerous way. Li was drunk driving and speeding on campus, and escaped after the accident. If the circumstances of the crime are bad and the consequences are serious, they should be severely punished according to law.

However, Li's relatives actively compensated the victims for their economic losses and obtained their understanding to some extent. Moreover, they voluntarily plead guilty in court and have a good attitude of repentance, which should also reflect the spirit of the criminal policy of combining leniency with severity. Considering the bad social impact of this case, it is difficult to gain the understanding and support of the broad masses of the people by giving Li a lighter punishment. Therefore, while grasping the overall direction of combining leniency with severity, we should also strictly grasp the range of combining leniency with severity. The court of first instance comprehensively considered the specific circumstances of the case and sentenced Li to six years in prison for traffic accidents. Appropriate sentencing reflects the organic unity of legal and social effects of case adjudication.